The Governance Guild in the ambassador program is at work drafting proposed bylaws to govern the ambassador program itself. While it is still very much in draft, we want to be working in public and to gather early feedback from the community at large.
Currently we have an outline of subjects, some of which have proposed language, and several that are in basic outline. Again, this is very much draft, and has not been reviewed at all by many of the ambassadors, nor by subspace labs, and all of it is subject to change and revision.
As the person taking responsibility for this effort, I wanted to share it with you all and ask for your (constructive ) feedback, particularly to hear about areas of concern.
While it may be easier to provide this in google docs or something that provides direct threaded comments, to provide more transparency I will be posting the current working draft directly on this thread.
The Subspace Ambassador Program (the “Program”) is created and sponsored by Subspace [Labs Inc.] (" Sponsor"). This document governs the principles, roles, responsibilities, membership, and general operations of the Program.
The Program exists to build and support a thriving Subspace Network community. Participants in the Program (”Ambassadors”) act as connectors, educators, promoters, and supporters, bringing wider awareness of the protocol to the public, helping to educate new community members, providing peer-to-peer support, and generally promoting the protocol and supporting and upholding the community values of permission-less, decentralized, and egalitarian.
Although the Ambassador Program is not strictly permission-less nor decentralized (of necessity, based on the scarcity of ambassador grants), it strives to operate internally in as permission-less and decentralized a manner as is reasonable under these conditions.
Special Member Status. As the creator of the Program, Sponsor shall maintain specific Rights and Obligations to the Program, which are governed by these Bylaws.
Funding. Sponsor has committed [1]% of the total token supply of Subspace Network SSC to the Program to provide a reward structure for individual Ambassadors.
Ambassador Agreements. The Ambassador rewards agreements are between Subspace Labs Inc. and the individual Ambassadors, and full compliance with such agreements is required for each member to maintain Good Standing.
Oversight. Sponsor shall maintain oversight of the program as defined in this paragraph.
4.a. Sponsor Representative. Sponsor shall appoint one representative to provide oversight of the Program at all times, and Sponsor represents that the currently-appointed representative has all necessary authority to act on behalf of the Sponsor to perform any and all duties under these Bylaws, and that the Ambassadors may rely on the representations of the representative.
4.b. Sponsor Representative Replacement. Sponsor may recall and replace its representative from time to time by appointing a new Sponsor Representative. The Ambassadors may, by a Supermajority Decision, request that the Sponsor replace its representative. Sponsor shall honor any such request within ninety days after receipt unless a subsequent Supermajority Decision of the Ambassadors withdraws the request within 30 days of the original request.
4.c. Sponsor Veto and Sponsor Consent. These Bylaws, and any amendments to these Bylaws, shall only become effective once consented to by the Sponsor, evidenced by the signature of the Sponsor Representative. Sponsor shall approve amendments as recommended by the Ambassadors through a Supermajority Decision unless Sponsor shall object for specific reasons, which must be among the reasons defined in this paragraph. Any such veto shall require a timely written response explaining the justification and reason for the Veto, along with suggested modifications or approaches that may be taken to obtain the Sponsor’s consent.
4.c.i. Violation Veto. Sponsor may veto an amendment that violates, or is reasonably expected to cause a violation of, the Sponsor’s governing documents.
4.c.ii. Risk Veto. Sponsor may veto an amendment that is likely, in the opinion of the Sponsor, to expose the Program or Subspace Network to significant risk, and there are not sufficient mechanisms in place, in the opinion of the Sponsor, to reasonably avoid, control, or compensate for the risk.
4.d. Admission of Ambassadors. The admission of any person as an Ambassador to the Program shall be official upon the signing of an Ambassador Agreement by Sponsor and the Ambassador which Ambassador Agreement shall materially conform with the terms and conditions currently specified in [Article 2] at the time the Ambassador Agreement is signed. Within thirty days after the recommendation by the Onboarding Team that a person be admitted as an Ambassador, Sponsor shall conduct its due diligence to determine, to Sponsor’s satisfaction, which shall be determined solely based on compliance with applicable laws and the terms and conditions of the Ambassador Agreement and of these Bylaws, whether it shall enter into an Ambassador Agreement with each person recommended for admission. Assuming it is satisfied, Sponsor shall execute an Ambassador Agreement with each such person and shall promptly notify the Onboarding Team of the admission. If Sponsor cannot enter into an Ambassador Agreement with any recommended person, that person shall not be admitted to the program and Sponsor shall communicate directly with the proposed ambassador as to its reasons and shall inform the Onboarding Team that Sponsor is denying the proposed person’s admission to the Program.
4.e. Termination of Ambassadors. Upon the resignation of an Ambassador, or receipt of a recommendation to the Sponsor Representative by an outcome of the Dispute Resolution process specified in [Article 4 Paragraph 6] that an Ambassador be removed from the Program, Sponsor shall terminate the Ambassador Agreement with such Ambassador as soon as reasonably practicable.
4.f. Appointment of Lead Ambassadors. An Ambassador may be recommended as a Lead Ambassador according to [TBD procedures specified somewhere here…] Upon such recommendation, Sponsor shall conduct its due diligence to confirm the Ambassador is in Good Standing and then shall execute an amendment to the Ambassador Agreement with such Ambassador to effectuate the additional responsibilities and compensation for a Lead Ambassador in accordance with [Article 2 Paragraph 5]. If Sponsor shall determine the Ambassador is not in Good Standing, Sponsor shall decline the Lead appointment, and instead shall refer the Ambassador to the Conflict Resolution process to consider termination of the Ambassador.
4.g. Demotion of Lead Ambassadors. Upon the resignation of a Lead Ambassador from the Lead role, or receipt of a recommendation to the Sponsor Representative by an outcome of the Dispute Resolution process specified in [Article 4 Paragraph 6] that a Lead Ambassador be removed from the Lead role (but not removed entirely from the Program), Sponsor shall work to amend the Ambassador Agreement to remove the Lead role and to stop any further incremental compensation attributable to the performance of Lead responsibilities.
Termination Rights. At any time after the full vesting and payment of any and all consideration under this Program by Sponsor or its affiliates to each and every Ambassador, Sponsor may, but shall not be required to, elect to terminate this Ambassador Program and shall be free of its obligations hereunder after the expiration or termination of each and every Ambassador Agreement.
All responsibilities for the oversight and administration of the Program not reserved for Sponsor in this Article shall be held by members of the Ambassador Program in accordance with these Bylaws.
Ambassadors are individual persons who have demonstrated an interest in and ability to help accomplish the Mission and Objectives of the Program and who have been selected by the Admission procedures outlined herein.
The Program operations shall be conducted by Ambassador Teams, which may be Official Teams established herein or other Ad hoc Teams that are created and dissolved from time to time according to the needs and will of the Ambassadors and through the procedures outlined herein.
Official Teams
1.a. Official teams are allocated one or more Lead Ambassador roles, which may be filled according to the procedures outlined in [Article 2 Paragraph 5].
1.b. The following official teams are acknowledged:
1.b.i. Support & Engineering Team.
1.b.ii. Education & Content Team.
1.b.iii. Engagement Team.
1.b.iv. Onboarding Team.
1.b.v. Governance Team.
1.b.vi. Program Administration Team.
Ad hoc Teams
2.a. Any Ambassador may create an Ad hoc Team for any initiative that supports the Program Mission. To be considered An ad hoc Team, the team must… (publish responsibility, confirm it does not infringe on scope of an Official Team, and recruit at least [3?] members.)
2.a.i. Election methods? Consent based?
2.b. Dispute Resolution Team. The Dispute Resolution Team is a permanent Ad hoc Team. The team shall be formed via fractal caucus for periods of six months.
Team Elevation. An Ad hoc Team may be elevated to an Official team by a Supermajority Agreement of the General Assembly. Elevation of an Ad hoc Team signifies the allocation of one or more Lead Ambassador roles assigned to that Team once it is an Official Team.
Transparency. Decisions must be transparent, meaning they should be recorded in sufficient detail to spell out the issue that was considered, the decision taken, the decision-making method used, and the result of the method. These records shall be available to all Ambassadors at all times, regardless of current membership status within the Program.
Subsidiarity. Unless otherwise specified, decisions should be taken by the smallest group of affected Ambassadors or Teams but not by a smaller group than those reasonably anticipated to be affected.
Agreements. Agreements are a Transparent recording of the decisions made by Ambassadors, which may outline the rules, policies, procedures, rights, and obligations of Ambassadors. To be officially incorporated into the governing documents of the Ambassador Program, the Agreements of the Ambassadors shall be integrated into these Bylaws through the Amendment Procedure. According to the principle of Subsidiarity, Ambassadors may make many Agreements that do not impact either all Ambassadors or all Ambassadors within an Official team, and those agreements shall not require integration into the Bylaws but shall be maintained with Transparency by the relevant team or teams. Any Agreements that pertain to all the members of an Official Team, or that pertain to all Ambassadors, must be incorporated into these Bylaws.
Decision-Making Bodies. According to Subsidiarity, Agreements may be created by any relevant grouping of Ambassadors. In addition to whatever groups may assemble related to a specific Agreement, the following Decision-Making Bodies are also acknowledged.
4.a. General Assembly. The membership of the General Assembly shall consist of all Ambassadors that are in Good Standing for the duration of the Assembly.
4.a.i. Establishment. A General Assembly shall be scheduled as needed, but no more frequently than once in 3 calendar months. In order to be scheduled, a General Assembly must meet the following requirements
4.a.i.1. There must be at least 1 proposed Agreement for consideration that requires a General Assembly to be ratified. Each proposed Agreement for consideration must be clearly and publicly documented, and must have received the Consent of GA Agenda Team for inclusion in a General Assembly.
4.a.i.2. There must be advance notice of at least one month provided to all Ambassadors, which must include the proposed date, time, location
Decision-Making Methods. Decisions shall be made by a specific method specified here, or through some other method that shall be documented by the team choosing to use a different method. Any alternative processes must adhere to the principles of Transparency and Subsidiarity.
5.a. Supermajority Decision. To approve an Agreement that requires a Supermajority decision of the relevant body, such as a Team or the General Assembly, the affirmative vote of at least 67% of the entire group membership, and the consent of the Subspace Labs Delegates, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, shall be required to approve the amendment or rule.
5.b. Simple Majority Decision.
5.c. Consent Decision.
5.d. Decree. (?)
I agree it is really important that we are selecting people that are passionate about the project and dedicated to helping grow the ecosystem.
One of the things I am going to propose for the selection process is that we consider switching from a push to grow ambassadors by quantity or quota, to pulling based on demand. It would be driven by Ambassadors requesting new Ambassadors based on needs and skills. e.g. instead of recruiting a next cohort of X ambassadors, we could have existing teams say - “hey, we need more coverage with support during these hours. Let’s recruit technical ambassadors that can help with farmer support in this timezone.” Or, “We need better docs in this language - let’s recruit ambassadors with these specific language skills.” We could also have community requests - e.g. “This part of the community is feeling left out or think we need more X, Y, Z … can you have ambassadors that focus on that?”
If we shift to a demand/pull based approach, when people join, it’s for a purpose and a clear need - so it will be obvious what they can do to contribute and that is needed by the community.
This is a really strong start @jrwashburn! I agree with every word you’ve written here and feel like we’re heading in the right direction to get a sustainable future for the program stood up. The only thing that I see needs tweaking is that the Ambassador Agreements will be with Subspace Foundation (“The Foundation”) rather than Labs/Network.
I recognise the effort you’ve put into producing this first draft of the Governance Bylaws and applaud them. Following the meeting notes in Coda has been an interesting ride and we appreciate the thoughtful discourse being surfaced from all the ambassadors involved in the process.
I will advertise this thread internally to see if the team have any other feedback for you. Sterling work!
Any Ambassador may create an Ad hoc Team for any initiative that supports the Program Mission. To be considered An ad hoc Team, the team must… (publish responsibility, confirm it does not infringe on scope of an Official Team, and recruit at least [3?] members.)
2.a.i. Election methods? Consent based?
What do you think of this idea: form teams to collaborate randomly so that they are not permanent, but shift around?
Not everyone of ambassadors can choose what they like to do continuously or they may not have a strong adherence for one direction.
(in a groups) shuffling teams can help reduce conflicts and tensions among participants since they will work with different individuals and develop new relationships.
This method can be beneficial in educational settings as it enables participants to gain a broader understanding and learn to work with various styles and personalities.
Though currently organised within Guilds, the Program promotes cross-functional collaboration. We notice this in initiatives where several engagement and support Ambassadors contribute to the Content & Guild and vice-versa.
From my understanding, Jonathan’s Ad hoc Team paragraph point at the same notion.
To clarify my understanding, does you first bullet:
a) proposes dismantling Guilds to promote cross-functional mechanics or
b) assumes that current dynamics seem to hinder cross-functional collaboration?
If “b,” please inform us so we can address any blockers and obstacles.
I think there should be a more regular and more detailed system for Ambassador purchases. After all, the ambassador program means supporting the project, and people come here when applying, saying what they can do, what they can contribute. It could be an idea or a social media contribution. The main thing is to support and really do it. But the incentive of each form of support should not be the same. This also means a decrease in performance for ambassadors. Because some contributions are easy to make, while others are really difficult and detailed.
I strongly support the scoring event in the ambassadorship, but I think it should be in two ways. firstly Dec, the scoring we have already done among ourselves, and October, in addition, a committee or people at the top levels of the team should make this situation even more serious by scoring us. In this way, the messengers also understand how serious the situation is. It doesn’t matter if they are new or old.
My thinking re: ad hoc teams is that they can dynamically assemble any time, and they may be cross functional, or not. Maybe they will assemble around a specific project - e.g. a hackathon or meetup. Maybe they will splinter off of a guild to provide something more specialized or to operate in a different way.
An “official” team would be the equivalent of a guild - the difference between this and an ad hoc team is that a guild has one or more lead ambassador slots allocated to its operations; whereas an ad hoc team does not have an assigned lead ambassador slot. (It would gain a slot if it gets promoted to an official team. If that naming is preferred by the teams, we can change “official team” to “guild” before we propose adoption.)
Thanks for this thread, Jonathan.
I totally agree with this proposal. A clear goal will allow ambassadors to understand the mission much more quickly and contribute accordingly. At that time, the agreement itself increases productivity, at least because it reminds ambassadors of their obligations
4.f. If Sponsor shall determine the Ambassador is not in Good Standing, Sponsor shall decline the Lead appointment, and instead shall refer the Ambassador to the Conflict Resolution process to consider termination of the Ambassador.
is there is a mistake? as in this case the demotion of Lead Ambassadors should take place instead of termination.
how long Ambassador Agreement lasts btw?
Subsidiarity. Unless otherwise specified, decisions should be taken by the smallest group of affected Ambassadors or Teams but not by a smaller group than those reasonably anticipated to be affected.
Could you please elaborate why ?
related to your next messages
Personally I agree with this:
“I think leads should a) be subject to the ongoing support of the teams - if a team loses confidence in a lead, that lead should be replaced (demoted to Ambassador) with a new Lead being elected”
But doubts about dynamic vesting, pause/resume ambassador rewarding
to Article 4
Regarding the idea of being able to reset the terms of the current program in favor of a more flexible one, it’s still a little bit early but there is a chance
to Article 5
More like “social credit/reputation as a motivator within the program”
) feedback, particularly to hear about areas of concern.
